- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Data extraction errors and double counting
- Disagreements in meta-analyses using outcomes measured on continuous or rating scales: observer agreement study
| Ref ID | 467 |
| First Author | B. Tendal |
| Journal | BMJ |
| Year Of Publishing | 2009 |
| URL | https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/339/bmj.b3128.full.pdf |
| Keywords |
• Cochrane • Author • General medical • Error • Expertise • Statistical |
| Problem(s) |
• Errors in effect estimate calculations or data synthesis • Lack of statistical expertise in handling of quantitative data • Data extraction errors and double counting |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 10 |
| Summary of Findings | Agreement was 53% at trial level and 31% at meta-analysis level. Reasons for disagreement reasons for disagreement were broadly related to: different choices, exclusion of a trial, and data extraction errors. In 14 out of the 100 standardised mean differences calculated at the meta-analysis level, individual observers reached different conclusions than the originally published review. |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Yes |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |